Thumos and doxa as intermediates in the Republic

HAL Id: hal-02615431

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02615431

Submitted on 22 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

To cite this version:

Olivier Renaut. Thumos and doxa as intermediates in the Republic. Plato Journal, International

Plato Society, 2018, 18, pp.71-82. �10.14195/2183-4105_18_6�. �hal-02615431�

Thumos and doxa as intermediates in the Republic

Olivier Renaut

Université Paris Nanterre olivier.renaut@parisnanterre.fr

https://doi.org/10.14195/2183-4105_18_6

ABSTRACT

Broadly speaking, something can be called intermediate for Plato insofar as it occupies a place between two objects, poles, places, time, or principles. But this broad meaning of the intermediate has been eclipsed by the Aristo- telian critique of the intermediate objects of the dianoia, so that it has become more difficult to think of the intermediates as functions of the soul. The aim of this paper is to show how, in the Republic, thumos is analogously treated as an intermediate with other kinds of intermediate ob- jects, and tentatively to relate this psychological intermediate in a broader theory with doxa, as its epistemological ground in the course of action.

Keywords: intermediate, thumos, doxa, opinion, spirit, metaxu

INTRODUCTION

When it comes to “intermediates” in Plato, one is tempted to think solely of mathematical intermediates, the objects of dianoia in book 6 of the Republic. Whether or not it comes from Aristotle’s critique on such intermediates, one must admit that he himself forgets to describe as intermediates some of the most important aspects of Plato’s psychology and ethical the­

ory

. But the word “metaxu” has undoubtedly a broader meaning in Plato’s dialogues. As Joseph Souilhé already noted in his thesis in 1919

, Plato can be called a “philosopher of the intermediates” insofar as the aim of the whole of his philosophy is to bridge the gaps between what is taken to be two poles or two kinds of reality. Souilhé’s first aim was to classify the wide range of intermediates into categories:

“psychological” (thumos, erōs, doxa, dianoia),

“ethical” (sophrōsynē, dikaoisunē, bios meson),

“political”, “cosmological”, and “metaphysical”;

a second consideration was to question whether there was a more systematic link between those intermediates.

This paper addresses the following ques­

tion, which is crucial for the meaning we are to give to Plato’s moral psychology in the Republic:

is there a link between thumos as intermediate and its epistemological counterpart, doxa? Let us recall briefly what thumos and doxa stand for. In book 4 of the Republic (436b ­441c), So­

crates argues that the soul is composed of three so ­called “parts” or rather “functions”: the rea­

soning part (to logistikon), the desiring part (to epithumetikon), and an intermediary part (to thumoeides or thumos), which is often trans­

lated as “spirit”

. This intermediary function is presented as having a key role — in the best case — to mediate reason’s commands, against the power of the desiring part. For whatever reason Plato shifts from a bipartition of the

soul (with reason and desire) to a tripartition, thumos introduces a new way of thinking of the relation between reason and desire: thumos is immediately thought to be a metaxu. As for doxa, which we take to mean opinion, but also belief, this is certainly an ubiquitous concept in Plato’s dialogues which is not tied with any systematic presentation; nevertheless, as it will be shown, doxa is presented in the Republic as a metaxu too, between knowledge and ignorance, having its object somewhere between what is and what is not.

The aim of this paper is certainly not to look for a system of intermediates. It will thus not be argued that thumos is the “seat” of doxa. As Sylvain Delcominette already showed convinc­

ingly, one should not conflate what appears to be a theory of the “parts” or “functions” of the soul, and what we could call a theory of “facul­

ties” or “capacities”

. Indeed, insofar as doxa is concerned, it is quite clear from the Republic that doxa can be at least ascribed to different

“structures” or characters or, broadly speaking, to the “agent”; it seems conversely impossible to ascribe the faculty of doxa to a specific “part”

of the soul, and even less so to ascribe different

“kinds” of doxa to different parts

. Neverthe­

less, the issue persists: if we are to accept the idea that there is an ethical function of thumos in the tripartite soul, which is manifest for the auxiliaries, for example in the form of what has been called an “imperfect virtue”

, one has to look for the epistemological grounds of such virtues or dispositions.

The question I want to raise is slightly dif­

ferent from the ones which try to ascribe sys­

tematically doxa (or whatever function) as an intermediate faculty to thumos as an intermedi­

ate part; my question would rather be: is there

a reason why we would ascribe doxa to thumos

because these two are both intermediates? In

what follows, I will try to show that there is

a homogenous theory of the functionings of the intermediates, that leads us to ascribe in a privileged way doxa to thumos in certain ethi­

cal situations.

1. THUMOS AS INTERMEDIATE

The argument for positing thumos as in­

termediate is found in book 4 of the Republic (439e ­441c), it is not the place here to recall the precise argument that leads to the discovery of the tripartite soul

, but it is interesting to note that the “intermediate” dimension of thumos can be understood in a polysemic way.

1) Meaning 1: Thumos is found out by contrasting its function first with desire (439e6 ­440e6), then with rea­

son (441a5 ­c2); it is neither desire nor reason even if some of its features seem identical. Thumos is then first described as a kind of “interval” cov­

ering a variety of ambivalent actions and passions: being angry or ashamed, resisting desires or fighting for some values, etc., all of them being best described as in ­between reason and desire.

2) Meaning 2: Thumos is nevertheless a

“median position” between the two extremes regarding virtue; if thumos is first thought as an interval, it rep­

resents at the end of the argument an autonomous function (eidos, genē) of the soul in ­between the two other poles, the range of actions and pas­

sions being unified by a single class­

­term (439e4; 440e8; 441c6). In this respect, the thumoeidic person, as it is clearly showed by the examples of Leontius, the honest man (who does

not seem to be a “wise man” though), children, animals and Ulysses, are not paragons of virtue, but they may nev­

ertheless embody an honest behavior without being completely virtuous.

3) Meaning 3: According to Socrates, thumos helps reason to fight desires whenever it is possible and provided that it is well educated; thumos is an auxiliary (epikouros) for reason (441a2 ­3). A third meaning of “in­

termediate” emerges here, insofar as thumos is not only an interval and a median position, but also tran­

scribes reason’s recommendation in the whole agent. In other words, thumos “mediates” reason’s rule in a positive way

.

The polysemy of “intermediate” in our passage may explain how difficult it is to as­

cribe a clear ­cut theory of the cognitive power of thumos. Examples of conflicting situations (thirst, and then the example of Leontius) show that a complex epistemic process is go­

ing on in the agent, which relies on different understandings, depending on the function of the soul that leads the course of the ac­

tion

. The action is morally distinct whether we rely on a) what is pleasant and painful, b) or on what is worthy or valued by others, c) or on what is reasonable and/or rational.

There is a supplementary difference, which has been notoriously described through the distinction between good ­independent and good ­dependent principles

, whether we act out of mere compulsion, or out of knowledge, or out of a doxa which is potentially right or wrong.

If we take the example of Leontius (439e6­

­440a6), his desire to see the corpses refers to a

cognitive understanding that confers pleasure

to this kind of morbid desire, whereas his anger against his same desire relies on a internalized judgement according to which taking pleasure in the misfortune of others is morally bad. By contrast, Ulysses (441b2 ­c2) may well be driven by his revengeful anger to kill the suitors out of a judgement that condemns such a vile behav­

ior, but he forms a rational (yet not necessarily morally just) judgement that prevents him to do so right away, probably to make his revenge more efficient.

The question is: in the course of action, what kind of activity does the agent enact, and by which part of the soul? A straightforward answer is that the desiring part desires, needs, craves, pushes and pulls, that the reasoning part reasons, learns, contemplates, and finally that the thumoeides affects a state of mind in the agent that is anger, shame, and other emotions that are precisely intermediate in being neither a desire nor a reasoning (meaning 1). How can we characterize thumos’s function in this tripartite model? Following Angela Hobbs’s analysis

, we can say that the thumos “values”, that is: gives personal importance to principles or objects, and leads the agent to commit himself in what he finds good, beautiful and just because that’s what he values most. Anger and shame are thus intermediate behaviors that exemplify the in­

termediate position of the character regarding virtue (meaning 2). As a motivational principle, thumos has then a role to play in each action we make, regardless of whether we are philosopher or not, depraved or not, philotimos or not. For in the course of action, there is a desire, and ei­

ther knowledge proper, or doxa, right or wrong;

and in the last case, thumos gives the content of the doxa a value that commits the agent in his action, all the more so if reason pervades or produces this doxa. What is at stake here is the way thumos as a part of the soul might be able to grasp something as a form or appearance

of the good, insofar as moral judgments bear upon something which is potentially related to a kind of knowledge (meaning 3). It is all the more important for our topic, for if a kind of virtue – an imperfect one

– is related to thumos, notably for the auxiliaries, it has to do with their ability to acquire some intermedi­

ary disposition between knowledge and mere obedience and compulsion.

Taking the same previous examples of Le­

ontius and Ulysses, one thing is to say that there is, in every situation, a judgement that relies on grounds that can be pleasure and pain, values and reason, and another thing to ascribe to each function of the soul a definite cognitive power. Leontius and Ulysses have, to say the least, a conflicting behavior; one way to understand this conflict is to posit opposite judgements on what is actually good and bad – each judgement coming from a general cogni­

tive apprehension of the situation depending on different criteria. It is not necessary for our present purpose to claim that desire and thu‑

mos have their own cognitive capacity; let us just say, in a more economical manner, that the rational part reasons; thumos listens to reason and acts according to a doxa that comes from reason giving it some value; and the desiring part desires, but might infect the doxa with its own criterion of appraisal, that is pleasure and pain. Thumos is intermediary because its function is to give value to a doxa, wherever it may come from, committing the agent into this system of values.

2. THUMOS AS PSYCHOLOGICAL SUPPORT TO DOXA

How can we explain the relative privileged link between thumos and doxa in the Republic?

Instead of focusing on a putative theory be­

tween faculties and parts of the soul, we may try to follow another path to link the two func­

tions, in positing an analogy between thumos and doxa as intermediates. For as a matter of fact, the way Socrates describes doxa as an in­

termediate in book 5 can be well compared with the way thumos is discovered in book 4. Again, three meanings could be found of metaxu when applied to doxa.

1) Meaning 1. Given that there is a wide range of objects and discourses be­

tween authentic knowledge, and ig­

norance, there must be an “interval”

between these two poles (477a9 ­b1).

Doxa is the name given to what is

“in ­between” being first contrasted with knowledge (477e8 ­478a1), and then with ignorance (478b6 ­c5). Its object being between “what is” and

“what is not”, doxa refers to this inter­

val, which we know to be very wide:

from an ordinary perceptive opin­

ion on what is beautiful to a strong judgement on what is just and good, the reign of the opinion is potentially infinite. This first meaning of doxa relies, so to say, on its extension. So­

crates ends his argument by insisting on the operation of considering doxa precisely as an interval defined by these two poles, even if it is in a nega­

tive way, in order to mark the limits of this capacity.

Now, we said that, if something could be shown, as it were, to be and not to be at the same time, it would be intermediate between what purely is and what in every way is not (μεταξὺ κεῖσθαι τοῦ εἰλικρινῶς ὄντος τε καὶ τοῦ πάντως μὴ ὄντος), and that nei­

ther knowledge nor ignorance would

be set over it, but something interme­

diate (μεταξὺ) between ignorance and knowledge? ­ Correct. ­ And now the thing we call opinion has emerged as being intermediate (μεταξὺ) between them? ­ It has. ­ Apparently, then, it only remains for us to find what par­

ticipates in both being and not being and cannot correctly be called purely one or the other, in order that, if there is such a thing, we can rightly call it the opinable, thereby setting the ex­

tremes over the extremes and the in­

termediate over the intermediate (τοῖς μὲν ἄκροις τὰ ἄκρα, τοῖς δὲ μεταξὺ τὰ μεταξὺ ἀποδιδόντες). Isn’t that so? ­ It is. (Resp. V, 478d5 ­e5, trans. Grube, rev. C.D.C. Reeve).

As for thumos, “setting the intermedi­

ate over the intermediate” is already giving doxa its place, and preventing it from overflowing reason’s function.

2) Meaning 2. Doxa has power; where does it comes from? Doxa is not only a vague interval but also a “position”

between knowledge and ignorance. As a judgement, a belief, or even as a per­

ceptual image, doxa gives the illusion to maintain something steady, even if plural and wrong. This is the case of the “lovers of sights” and “sounds”

who claim to be experts in beauty (475d1 ­e1; 479d3 ­e5). Because those who do have a doxa act and speak as if they possess a real knowledge – and precisely because they do not abstain or claim their ignorance, doxa is a metaxu between knowledge and igno­

rance insofar as they assert something

which, even if false, pretends to be real

and true. It is then not sufficient to

demarcate doxa in its extension, in be­

tween what is and what is not; Socrates has to define doxa as a metaxu in a hierarchical way, as a median position between what is truly known and what is simply ignored. In giving its right place as median position, Socrates makes doxa a class of judgement in regard to true knowledge, accounting for its inconsistency and nevertheless its psychological power.

3) Meaning 3. But why does Socrates then admit that doxa is a capacity, rather than a non ­capacity, as ignorance is?

Last, doxa is described as a possible

“mediation” through the two other poles (knowledge as a capacity, and ignorance as a non ­capacity), insofar as people would accept, in the best case scenario, that there is a differ­

ence between the philosopher and the philodoxos. We know, from the Meno (97b9), that doxa is as efficient in the action, if true, as knowledge. Here in the Republic, Socrates makes a further step. In forming a true opinion, in be­

ing persuaded by the philosopher that there is indeed a difference between knowledge and opinion (476d8 ­e3), one might expect, at best, that one can hold a doxa knowing that it is a doxa and not knowledge. This is not to say that doxa could, if true, be as valuable as knowledge; but in succeeding the refutation and persuasion, Socrates could make doxa a (non ­rational) mean to assert the superiority of rea­

son

. I will come to this point in my third section.

This analogy between the functioning of both intermediates, doxa and thumos, does not necessarily entail that there is a privileged link

between ethical and epistemological intermedi­

ates. And there is no hint in the description of doxa which is explicitly said about its ethical counterpart, thumos. Nevertheless, it is inter­

esting to show how these two intermediates in the Republic are associated to give a full ac­

count on what it is to have an opinion, a belief, a representation of a value, as the experience of the agent

.

2.1. The doxastic object of thumos

First of all, thumos seems to have a privi­

leged range of objects, all of them reducible to timē (honor and esteem) and nikē (victory) ac­

cording to book 9 (581a9 ­10). The philotimos (lover of honor) behaves according to doxai that refer to these two objects. Now, these two terms could apply to many other objects, persons or actions, insofar as they contribute to acquire some timē or nikē; for example, public honors or presents are thought to be necessary to acquire more timē (social honor) in general. It goes the same way with victory, beauty, courage and manliness, love for action rather than love for discourse and knowledge, power, love for gymnastics rather than love for music, etc. All these objects are valued by the philotimos with the view to acquire more timē. In theory, one can “value” anything, so as to become a privileged object for his thu‑

mos, but the philotimos selects what he values for the sake of timē. To put it in a nutshell, the kind of action attributed to thumos in book 4 (to esteem and to value) is generally (though not systematically) equivalently understood as a special kind of desire: “to love timē”

as an object

. Timē and nikē, which refer to

relative status are best described as doxai,

thought as reputation and all the kinds of

judgements that refer to this very reputation:

what people say, praise and blame, rumor, and further mode of appearances such as glory, shame, etc.

We are now in a position to have a better understanding of this meaning of intermediate as “interval”, both for doxa and thumos. There is an intimate connection between those two intermediates not so much because of a so­

­called cognitive ability of thumos, but because both the function of the soul and the capacity pervades a very wide range of objects, some of which are not easy to refer to desire or reason only, as book 9 recalls:

Won’t a money ­maker say that the pleas­

ure of being honored (τὴν τοῦ τιμᾶσθαι ἡδονὴν) and that of learning are worth­

less compared to that of making a profit, if he gets no money from them? — He will. — What about an honor ­lover (ὁ φιλότιμος)? Doesn’t he think that the pleasure of making money is vulgar (φορτικήν τινα ἡγεῖται) and that the pleasure of learning — except insofar as it brings him honor (μὴ μάθημα τιμὴν φέρει) — is smoke and nonsense? — He does. — And as for a philosopher, what do you suppose he thinks the other pleasures are worth compared to that of knowing where the truth lies and always being in some such pleasant condition while learning? Won’t he think that they are far behind? (Resp. IX, 581c10 ­e3, trans.

Grube, rev. C.D.C. Reeve).

Objects of thumos are always doxai in the sense that they are social and political constructions of what people value most in a given city. No wonder then, that the objects of thumos are potentially instable, inconsistent, and rest all the more so on sensible particulars and situations.

2.2. Thumos gives power to doxa to overcome desires

A second important aspect of the analogous functioning between thumos and doxa is the way the first gives strength to the latter, and especially over pleasure and pain.

But what happens if, instead, he believes (ἡγῆται) that someone has been unjust to him? Isn’t the spirit within him boiling and angry, fighting for what he believes to be just (συμμαχεῖ τῷ δοκοῦντι δικαίῳ)?

Won’t it endure hunger, cold, and the like and keep on till it is victorious, not ceas­

ing from noble actions until it either wins, dies, or calms down, called to heel by the reason within him, like a dog by a shep­

herd? (Resp. IV, 440c7 ­d3, trans. Grube, rev. C.D.C. Reeve).

The honest man holds a doxa on what is just and unjust. It is not said how the agent (in our case an honest person, but not neces­

sarily a “virtuous” one) forms its belief on justice, but it appears that this belief gains its force through his spirited part, through bodily symptoms and anger. Thumos is not the function through which a doxa is formed, but it is, for sure, that through which it gains its force and value in the course of action. As it has been often pointed out, there are many desires that are supported by a doxa, especially in the case of the characters in book 8 and 9, for example the oligarch

. It may even be the case that an acratic person is best understood as an agent whose doxai follow opposite di­

rections

. So again thumos is certainly not the only function in the soul that deals with doxa; rather, thumos is an auxiliary power­

ful enough to overcome natural pleasure and

pain (“hunger, cold, and the like”) or even

life (“either wins, dies, or calms down”), in giving doxa a sufficient value against com­

peting desires that would follow a pleasure/

pain criterion.

2.3. Thumos gives doxa a relative stability

A third feature of the thumos/doxa relation is made explicit in book 4 through the descrip­

tion of civic courage of the auxiliaries. Even if doxa is volatile, not being grounded on reason, thumos is capable to transform a doxa into a quasi ­permanent disposition.

Then, you should understand that, as far as we could, we were doing some­

thing similar when we selected our sol­

diers and educated them in music and physical training. What we were con­

triving was nothing other than this: that because they had the proper nature and upbringing, they would absorb the laws in the finest possible way (ὅτι κάλλιστα τοὺς νόμους πεισθέντες δέξοιντο), just like a dye (ὥσπερ βαφήν), so that their belief (δόξα) about what they should fear and all the rest would become so fast (δευσοποιὸς) that even such ex­

tremely effective detergents as pleasure, pain, fear, and desire wouldn’t wash it out — and pleasure is much more po­

tent than any powder, washing soda, or soap. This power to preserve (τὴν δὴ τοιαύτην δύναμιν καὶ σωτηρίαν) through everything the correct and law ­inculcated belief (δόξης ὀρθῆς τε καὶ νομίμου) about what is to be feared and what isn’t is what I call courage, unless, of course, you say otherwise.

(Resp. IV, 429e7 ­430e5. trans. Grube, rev. C.D.C. Reeve)

In this passage, the origin of doxa is made clear enough: coming from law and reason, a series of beliefs are internalized by the auxiliaries through different means (music, gymnastic, and other kinds of training that have been depicted especially in book 3). Be­

cause the origin of doxa is reason and law, it is a just and correct one (orthē). But it is not because it is a right opinion or belief that it lasts in the face of pleasure, pains and other passions: thumos, which is known to be one of the tendencies that has been the attention of the educator in the prior education, has the power (dunamis) to preserve (sōtēria) the opinion against other desires. A difference then should be made between having an opinion, believing it is true and assenting to it on the one hand, and having an opinion that constitutes one’s character on the other hand. Of course, this is an “imperfect” virtue which is described here, insofar as counterfactual situations may well destroy the power of thumos; but it remains true that only the power of thumos conveys the doxa to be steady in spite of its ontological and epistemological instability.

What is important then is not only the fact

that the doxa is right or wrong, but also the

way thumos (and the whole agent) considers it

as a dynamic intermediate to perform a good

or (imperfect) virtuous action. If we want to

account for the epistemological processes of

thumos, we should not properly say that it has

or forms a doxa, but rather that it gives doxa

some of the properties to become not only a

judgement, either propositional, or perceptual

or both, but a real valuable belief.

3. THE FUNCTIONS OF THE

INTERMEDIATES IN THE EDUCATION

It is now possible to account for the impor­

tance of the notion of “intermediate” during education in the Republic, in giving doxa and thumos the role of mediation towards the posi­

tive pole from which they are defined as an in ­between position.

At the end of book 4, Socrates concludes, with the help of a metaphor, on what it is to harmonize our own soul in giving a last defi­

nition of “justice”, after he gave definitions of the three other cardinal virtues.

And in truth justice is, it seems, some­

thing of this sort. However, it isn’t con­

cerned with someone’s doing his own externally, but with what is inside him, with what is truly himself and his own.

One who is just does not allow any part of himself to do the work of another part or allow the various classes within him to meddle with each other. He regulates well what is really his own and rules him­

self. He puts himself in order, is his own friend, and harmonizes the three parts of himself (συναρμόσαντα τρία ὄντα) like three limiting notes in a musical scale (ὥσπερ ὅρους τρεῖς ἁρμονίας) — high, low, and middle (νεάτης τε καὶ ὑπάτης καὶ μέσης). He binds together those parts and any others there may be in between (εἰ ἄλλα ἄττα μεταξὺ τυγχάνει ὄντα), and from having been many things he becomes entirely one, moderate and harmonious. Only then does he act.

And when he does anything, whether acquiring wealth, taking care of his body, engaging in politics, or in private contracts — in all of these, he believes (ἡγούμενον) that the action is just and

fine that preserves this inner harmony and helps achieve it (ἣ ἂν ταύτην τὴν ἕξιν σῴζῃ τε καὶ συναπεργάζηται), and calls it so (ὀνομάζοντα), and regards as wisdom the knowledge that oversees such actions (σοφίαν δὲ τὴν ἐπιστατοῦσαν ταύτῃ τῇ πράξει ἐπιστήμην). And he believes that the action that destroys this harmony is unjust, and calls it so, and regards the be­

lief that oversees it as ignorance (ἀμαθίαν δὲ τὴν ταύτῃ αὖ ἐπιστατοῦσαν δόξαν).

(Resp. 443c9 ­444a2; trans. Grube, rev.

C.D.C. Reeve).

Socrates has already used the musical metaphor to convey an image of a harmonized soul in book 2 and 3, notably in 410c ­412a, where the aim of the first education by music and gymnastics was to find a balance in the soul of the future guardian between her/his thumoeides and her/his philosophical nature, in “tuning” them. It is by this tuning that one could achieve a musical “chord”, through the equilibrium between these dispositions (412a4 ­7)

. In book 4, the chord depends on the knowledge and sophia that comes from the law, in tuning the three strings of the harmony which correspond to each function of the soul. The harmonia is then not only a tuning between dispositions, but a hier­

archical ordering of the soul’s three parts, so that reason should rule over the others (epistatousa), thumos should “preserve” (sōzē) reason’s rule — as we have seen through the dying metaphor (429e7 ­430e5), and the de­

siring part should obey this disposition. So

that from book 3 to book 4, thumos is not

anymore a natural tendency in the soul, but

should become the equivalent of the mesē in

the musical instrument, that is the position

through which the interval between reason

and desire is made definite and virtuous.

One may wonder about the oddity of the sentence: “and any others there may be in be­

tween”, as if there were other intermediates than thumos. Plato probably refers here to a tetrachord, and mentions only the principal fixed strings (horoi) — the hypate and nete be­

ing the lower and the highest string, the mese and paramese being in between —, the movable other strings depending on the type of harmo‑

nia wanted

. It is unlikely that Plato means that there are other “intermediates” between rea­

son and desire than thumos; rather, we should understand that, given the fixed position of these three strings, some variations may occur between the just persons, whether they belong to the ruling class, the auxiliary class, or the third class of the city, and whether their natural disposition is more akin to one of the natural tendencies that have been described in book 3.

In other words, thumos as a position in ­between reason and desire in book 4 overlaps the “inter­

val” of actions and dispositions that it covers in book 3. Then, we must recognize that there is a certain “plasticity” of the thumos that can be molded, shaped and modeled during educa­

tion, in order, at least, to have an “imperfect”

virtuous person.

The two last sentences are quite relevant as to the link between thumos and doxa as mediation.

Knowledge (epistēmē) is presented as the sole ground for virtue and sophia, whereas it is a doxa that is assimilated to disharmony, but also to ignorance (amathia). This strong dichotomy between knowledge and doxa does not seem to be coherent with what is said of doxa in book 5 where ignorance is distinct from it from an ontological point of view. A solution to this apparent paradox would be to refer to a distinction between a right and a wrong doxa, the latter being responsible of ignorance and vice. However, it is not a right doxa which is responsible for virtue either, but

proper knowledge. So I would suggest, rather, that this description of this harmonious per­

son is not of a “real” virtuous man who would have the knowledge of it, but a mere ordinary man, who already has a doxa on what is the principle of the harmony or disharmony in his soul. Grube translates the “ἡγούμενον” as “he believes”, as if it were another doxa whose ob­

ject itself is the difference between knowledge and doxa. What is maybe an over ­translation is getting to the point: what the honest man has is a “thinking”, an ethical judgement, which, depending on the education of his thumos, val­

ues reason and law as the rule of his action.

A similar situation occurs in book 5, when the philosopher finally persuades the other citizens that there is a difference between doxa and knowledge, even if the citizens do not have access to proper knowledge. We must then rec­

ognize that thumos’s function here is to value reason and law as the proper origin of right doxa; this explains why the honest man finally

“names” sophia the rules and recommenda­

tions that thumos is inclined to follow. Here, thumos has a crucial role to play in recogniz­

ing, through a right doxa, what falls within reason or the law’s rule, and what falls within mere unjustified doxa. The median position of the intermediate is not enough to ascribe to one of the opposites a positive value; another function of the intermediate is to be a step for­

ward to the positive pole. In other words, the intermediate gives a meaning to the poles in being a mediation between them and positing them as extremes as it does, and valuing rea­

son, good, fine, noble, as positive poles rather

than desire, pleasure and pain.

CONCLUSION

All these striking links and similarities be­

tween thumos and doxa should not lead us to posit that thumos is a seat of doxa, nor that, I contend, thumos is an epistemological faculty similar to doxa as far as ethical judgments are concerned. Plato never says that explicitly and has probably no reason to do so. We cannot go further then in positing a system of inter­

mediate faculties. However, thumos is said to be sensitive to reason in a way that compels us to make it an essential psychic function to give doxa a practical meaning. If there is no theory between ethical and epistemological intermediates, there are, indeed, analogous operational relations between them. Thumos and doxa are polarized intervals, but also po­

sitions between real and pre ­existent valued poles (what is valued as good), and finally dy­

namic starting points to access the positive pole (reason’s rule).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barker, Andrew. 1989. Greek musical writings. Volume II, Harmonic and acoustic theory. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Bobonich, Christopher. 2002. Plato’s Utopia Recast:

His Later Ethics and Politics. Oxford: Claren­

don Press.

Brancacci, Aldo. 2005. ‘Musique et philosophie en Ré­

publique II ­IV’. In Études sur la ‘République’ de Platon. 1, De la justice : éducation, psychologie et politique, edited by Monique Dixsaut, 89 ­106.

Paris: J. Vrin.

Brennan, Tad. 2012. ‘The Nature of the Spirited Part of the Soul and Its Object’. In Plato and the Divided Self, edited by Rachel Barney, Tad Brennan, and Charles Brittain, 102 ­27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carone, G. R. 2001. ‘Akrasia in the Republic: Does Plato Change His Mind?’ Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 20: 107 ­48.

Cooper, J. M. 1998. Reason and Emotion: Essays on Ancient Moral Psychology and Ethical Theory.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Cornford, F. M. 1912. ‘Psychology and Social Structure in the Republic of Plato’. The Classical Quarterly 6 (4): 246 ­65.

Crombie, I. M. 1962. An Examination of Plato’s Doc‑

trines. New York: Humanities Press.

Delcomminette, Sylvain. 2008. ‘Facultés et Parties de l’âme Chez Platon’. Plato Journal, no. 8. https://

doi.org/10.14195/2183 ­4105_8_4.

Gerson, Lloyd P. 2003. Knowing Persons : A Study in Plato. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Hall, Robert W. 1963. ‘Ψυχή as Differentiated Unity in the Philosophy of Plato’. Phronesis, 63 ­82.

Hobbs, Angela. 2000. Plato and the Hero: Courage, Manliness, and the Impersonal Good. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Irwin, Terence. 1995. Plato’s Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kamtekar, Rachana. 1998. ‘Imperfect Virtue’. Ancient Philosophy 18 (2): 315 ­39. https://doi.org/10.5840/

ancientphil199818233.

——, 2006. ‘Speaking with the Same Voice as Reason:

Personification in Plato’s Psychology’’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 31: 167 ­202.

Lafrance, Yvon. 1982. ‘Les fonctions de la doxa­

­épistémè dans les dialogues de Platon’. Laval théologique et philosophique 38 (2): 115. https://

doi.org/10.7202/705925ar.

Penner, Terry. 1971. ‘Thought and Desire in Plato’. In Plato, edited by Gregory Vlastos, 2:96 ­118. New York: Anchor Books.

Renaut, Olivier. 2014a. Platon, La Médiation Des Émotions. L’éducation Du Thymos Dans Les Dialogues. Paris: J. Vrin.

——, 2014b. ‘Dualisme et Metaxu; Trois Us­

ages de l’intermédiaire Chez Platon’.

Méthexis 27 (1): 121 ­38. https://doi.

org/10.1163/24680974 ­90000635.

Smith, Nicholas D. 1999. ‘Plato’s Analogy of Soul and State’. The Journal of Ethics 3 (1): 31 ­49. https://

doi.org/10.1023/A:1026402630245.

Souilhé, Joseph. 1919. La Notion platonicienne d’intermédiaire dans la philosophie des Dia‑

logues. Paris: Félix Alcan.

Stocks, J. L. 1915. ‘Plato and the Tripartite Soul’. Mind, New Series, 24 (94): 207 ­21.

Szaif, Jan. 2007. ‘Doxa and Epistêmê as Modes of Ac­

quaintance in Republic V’. Études Platoniciennes, no. 4 (October): 253 ­72. https://doi.org/10.4000/

etudesplatoniciennes.915.

Wersinger, Anne Gabrièle. 2001. Platon et la dyshar‑

monie : recherches sur la forme musicale. Paris:

J. Vrin.

Wilburn, Josh. 2015. ‘Courage and the Spirited Part of the Soul in Plato’s Republic’. Philosophers’

Imprint 15 (26): 1 ­21.

NOTES

1 For example, as it has been recalled by (Cooper 1998, chap. 10), Aristotle may use the platonic tripartite model of the soul in his Ethics, but thumos has no longer the status of the intermediate – at least as it has been defined by Plato – between reason and desire, for the tripartite model is used to convey three distinct type of desires.

2 See (Souilhé 1919).

3 For a general presentation of thumos in Plato, see (Renaut 2014a).

4 (Delcomminette 2008).

5 See especially (Gerson 2003, 102–12).

6 On this point, see (Kamtekar 1998).

7 For an extensive description of the argument, see (Cornford 1912; Stocks 1915; Hall 1963; Penner 1971;

Renaut 2014a; Wilburn 2015). We should bear in mind that the autonomy of this part has been questioned by commentators for they see either an ad hoc argument to fit in the tripartite model of the city (Cornford), or that it is not clear whether thumos is distinct from reason and desire (Penner), as if its functions could be reduced to one or the other. Some other commentators (Smith 1999) endorse a strong version of the autonomy of this interme­

diate, but remain skeptical about the overall coherence of this psychological theory. I thank N. Smith for having pointed out that thesis out to me.

8 On different meaning of metaxu as far as thu‑

mos is concerned, see (Brennan 2012), esp. p. 122, where thumos is presented as “bond, medium and middle ­term”.

See also (Renaut 2014b) on which this conclusion is based.

9 On this point, see (Crombie 1962, 341–68).

10 See esp. (Carone 2001) for the consequences of this distinction.

11 See (Hobbs 2000).

12 I am relying here on (Kamtekar 1998).

13 I thank N. Baima for pointing this difficulty out to me. On this passage, see also (Szaif 2007).

14 (Szaif 2007), esp. §54 ­58, who rightly insists on the link between the transient mode of acquaintance of doxa, and the possibility, nevertheless, for doxa to be a possible transition towards understanding. About the

philodoxos, Szaif writes: “They are in an intermediate state which is not knowledge but at least provides some starting ­points in the quest for real understanding”.

15 See (Lafrance 1982), who recalls quite rightly that doxa should not be understood in an exclusive epistemological and ontological point of view. In a way, I think the Republic gives us a fuller account of what it is to have a belief than the Meno, precisely in associating thumos and doxa.

16 See (Wersinger 2001, 191).

17 See Resp. 554d9 ­e5, and on this point (Irwin 1995, 217–18), and for a stronger view (Bobonich 2002, 317).

18 For the strong view that akrasia stages competing doxai from different functions of the soul, see (Carone 2001); I agree rather with (Kamtekar 2006), esp.

p. 186, in saying that personification of doxai does not necessarily entail that each function has its own doxastic power.

19 On this passage in book 3, see (Wersinger 2001, 171–79; Brancacci 2005).

20 See (Barker 1989, 11–13).